On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Robert Dewar <de...@adacore.com> wrote: > On 2/9/2014 3:23 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > >>> can't we just reword the one warning where there is an ambiguity to >>> avoid the confusion, rather than creating such an earthquake, which >>> as Arno says, really has zero advantages to Ada programmers, and clear >>> disadvantages .. to me [enabled by default] is already awfully long! >> >> >> Well, since the Ada part has been rejected I think we just need to >> consider this from the non-Ada perspective. And IMO there's zero >> chance that each new warning will be audited for whether the >> "[enabled by default]" will be unambiguous. The fact that this >> particular warning caused confusion and someone actually reported >> it doesn't mean that there are no other warnings like that. E.g.: >> >> -fprefetch-loop-arrays is not supported with -Os [enabled by default] >> >> could also be misunderstood, especially if working on an existing codebase >> with an existing makefile. And the effect for: >> >> pragma simd ignored because -fcilkplus is not enabled [enabled by >> default] >> >> is a bit unfortunate. Those were just two examples -- I'm sure I could >> pick more. > > > Indeed, worrisome examples, > > a shorter substitute would be [default warning] > > ???
Or print nothing at all? After all [...] was supposed to tell people how to disable the warning! If there isn't a way to do that ... maybe instead print [-w]? hmm, all existing [...] are positive so we'd have to print -no-w which doesn't exist. Bah. So there isn't a way to "negate" -w on the commandline to only get default warnings enabled again. Richard. >> >> >> Thanks, >> Richard >> >
